If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 21:11:40 -0800, Mary Shafer
wrote: Every "game" simulator I've ever flown seemed to use the same math model, one that, as you say, was not dynamically possible. Fun's fun, but physics is physics. .... yet any game uses a completely different engine to create the flight model. The differences are where the game engine does its short cuts to allow realtime operation. The sims are too generic, partly because there just isn't enough time and space for a detailed math model, because the FCS is proprietary and much too big to be modeled, because the control surfaces aren't modeled correctly, the mass model isn't right, and so on. The main problem of PC flight simulations is that the performance of a PC is not sufficient to calculate a realtime aerodynamic simulation. Mass models are ok these days in most flight sims, as well as performance and envelope data which are in some cases very close to reality. Only few PC simulations even try to simulate engine torqe effects on prop aircraft. The problems start if the simulated aircraft does non-linear maneuvers (post-stall, spins) - this is when some PC simulations can get very erratic because their simplified physics model needs to rely on pre-calculated data (to save computing time). The result is either a "standard" stall routine (always the same spin, independent on how you entered it), or erratic movements that does not even look close to what a real aircraft would do. So far the only PC simulations that attempt to simulate post-stall effects are MS Flight Sim 2002 and 2004, MS Combat Flight Sim 2 and 3, and X-Plane, but the results are not entirely convincing yet. Any PC simulator is (of course) handicapped most by the input devices - a PC joystick and a mouse simply cannot give even a similar feeling to the stick of a real aircraft (or a full cockpit simulator).This is the cause why the characteristics of a PC simulated aircraft cannot be even similar to the real thing, even if the performance data throughout the envelope are very similar. However, learning to "fly" with a fixed-base, low-fidelity sim game isn't going to happen. All that will happen is that the student will pick up responses and habits that will have to be unlearned before the correct responses and habits can be acquired in the actual airplane. I've heard flight instructors complaining about how they can always tell if someone plays with MS Flight Simulator a lot, because it takes a lot longer to teach them how to fly the actual airplane. Indeed. The training effect concerning a PC simulator is that of a procedure trainer. You can learn to fly standard procedures (even with ATC these days), learn to program an FMC, to learn where to look at to keep the plane under control, but the feeling of flight cannot be learned. Flying a PC simulation too often indeed tends to teach a couple of bad habits that are hard to train away again (looking a the instruments too often is one of them). There are a number of pretty realistic combat flight simulators out there that simulate aerial combat. If the game engine is good, real-world combat tactics need to be flown in these games to win a dogfight. It might be interesting to compare such a game to real-world dogfighting. Bye Andreas |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: PC flight simulators
From: Ed Rasimus Date: 11/17/03 8:24 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: On 17 Nov 2003 15:47:29 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote: Subject: PC flight simulators From: Ed Rasimus Date: 11/17/03 7:35 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: But (there's always a "but" somewhere in the background), several years ago while working at Northrop on ATF (the F-23 program), we were grappling with the best way to train fighter pilots for that elusive capability called "SA"--situational awareness. It's the sort of "big picture" that the best tactical aviators can carry in their head which allows them to know instinctively where their support is, where the bad guy's support is, which way is "bug out", how much longer they can stay engaged, and what to do ten, fifteen and thirty seconds into the future. What did work, surprisingly well, was a system of linked "desk-top" stations that let us increase the number of players to 12 and then to 24 plus computer generated entities. A 25 inch color monitor, configurable for instrument, HUD and sensor display; a stick grip ala F-16, and a throttle. No motion, no video, no detailed cockpit mockup. Surprisingly, a cadre of highly experienced tactical aviators--FWS, Top Gun, test pilots (Edwards & Pax River)--all quickly became immersed in the "video games". We learned a lot about teaching higher level tactical analysis, force integration and weapons employment without the clutter and overhead of multi-million dollar massively mobile flight simulators. If you want to learn to fly the jet, full motion or video simulators are great. If you want to learn how to integrate the force and fight the weapons in many-v-many scenarios there is a place for PC based, network simulations. IMNSHO. I understand. But you are hardly talking about Flight Simulator on a home computer are you? Sounds like what youy are decribing is way out if the reach of anyone with a home setup..You are also talking about a highly specialised dedicated setup to solve very specific puposes. Not the sort of stuff readily available at Best Buy is it? Arthur Kramer Actually the sort of stuff that is currently available to home users that portrays F-16, F/A-18, Tornado, etc, is much more detailed than what we were using in terms of the cockpit displays. The off-the-shelf controllers available at Best Buy are more realistic than what we used. And, most importantly, the proliferation of high-speed Internet access makes it possible to network war-game to levels that weren't even considered in what we were doing at Northrop. Now, whether someone is simply boring holes at random, shooting at everyone that comes across the canopy or whether one is engaged in a conscientious tactical training scenario is something else. What we had hoped to do, and what is readily available to any home user today, is to train by networking squadron to squadron, base to base to build scenarios of virtually any size. Certainly the mix of full motion and video, full cockpit simulations with the PC desktops isn't in the cards for home users, but the experience of dealing with complex battles, mutual support, total sensor integration and lots of unknowns that typify real combat is. In other words, don't jump to conclusions and be too eager to discount the simple solution to a complex problem. Shave and a haircut, Mr. Occam? Does this mean that you suggest home simulatorsasa means to learn to fly? Maybe that is too simple for even our friend Occam. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
In article rfUtb.225$Jz1.32@okepread03, Gene Storey wrote:
I have a copy, but to tell the truth, the F-105 and F-4 simulators seem pretty bogus to me. And there's something wrong with the F-22 too, but if this means it's bad models or if the program is better at simulating general aviation and airliners I don't know. -- Urban Fredriksson Military aviation: Swedish military aviation, the rec.aviation.military FAQ http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/ Weblog http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/avblog.html |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: PC flight simulators
From: Andreas Maurer Date: 11/17/03 8:05 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 21:11:40 -0800, Mary Shafer wrote: Every "game" simulator I've ever flown seemed to use the same math model, one that, as you say, was not dynamically possible. Fun's fun, but physics is physics. ... yet any game uses a completely different engine to create the flight model. The differences are where the game engine does its short cuts to allow realtime operation. The sims are too generic, partly because there just isn't enough time and space for a detailed math model, because the FCS is proprietary and much too big to be modeled, because the control surfaces aren't modeled correctly, the mass model isn't right, and so on. The main problem of PC flight simulations is that the performance of a PC is not sufficient to calculate a realtime aerodynamic simulation. Mass models are ok these days in most flight sims, as well as performance and envelope data which are in some cases very close to reality. Only few PC simulations even try to simulate engine torqe effects on prop aircraft. The problems start if the simulated aircraft does non-linear maneuvers (post-stall, spins) - this is when some PC simulations can get very erratic because their simplified physics model needs to rely on pre-calculated data (to save computing time). The result is either a "standard" stall routine (always the same spin, independent on how you entered it), or erratic movements that does not even look close to what a real aircraft would do. So far the only PC simulations that attempt to simulate post-stall effects are MS Flight Sim 2002 and 2004, MS Combat Flight Sim 2 and 3, and X-Plane, but the results are not entirely convincing yet. Any PC simulator is (of course) handicapped most by the input devices - a PC joystick and a mouse simply cannot give even a similar feeling to the stick of a real aircraft (or a full cockpit simulator).This is the cause why the characteristics of a PC simulated aircraft cannot be even similar to the real thing, even if the performance data throughout the envelope are very similar. However, learning to "fly" with a fixed-base, low-fidelity sim game isn't going to happen. All that will happen is that the student will pick up responses and habits that will have to be unlearned before the correct responses and habits can be acquired in the actual airplane. I've heard flight instructors complaining about how they can always tell if someone plays with MS Flight Simulator a lot, because it takes a lot longer to teach them how to fly the actual airplane. Indeed. The training effect concerning a PC simulator is that of a procedure trainer. You can learn to fly standard procedures (even with ATC these days), learn to program an FMC, to learn where to look at to keep the plane under control, but the feeling of flight cannot be learned. Flying a PC simulation too often indeed tends to teach a couple of bad habits that are hard to train away again (looking a the instruments too often is one of them). There are a number of pretty realistic combat flight simulators out there that simulate aerial combat. If the game engine is good, real-world combat tactics need to be flown in these games to win a dogfight. It might be interesting to compare such a game to real-world dogfighting. Bye Andreas Excellant point by point rundown. I think that we can assume that the claims made for consumer simulators is gross overpromise at best. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Andreas Maurer wrote in message ... Flying a PC simulation too often indeed tends to teach a couple of bad habits that are hard to train away again (looking a the instruments too often is one of them). Perfect for learning to fly IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) as opposed to VFR (Visual Flight Rules). Anyone who flies at night, or in conditions with poor visibility, or in clouds, needs an IFR rating. Under these conditions, your instruments are all you have. I agree that in conditions where VFR is possible within the sim, the trouble is that the player has limited visibility, and "looking" around is more cumbersome and less natural-feeling than just turning your head around - so the player just looks forward, at his/her instruments. I fly MSFS2002, and use the virtual cockpit view with "ActiveCamera", which allows me to "look around" using my mouse. It includes head lag, so that you get a better impression of movement as your "head" is "pushed" to one side as your aircraft turns. And because MSFS features dynamic virtual cockpits, all the instruments are still visible in full working order within the 3D environment (independant of the 2D panel it renders when in 2D cockpit view). Cheers Graeme |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
With all due respect I don't really consider Fighter Anthology a "recent"
release. It is composed of 6+ year old software which makes it very dated given the rapid rate of pc hardware and software development. Sims like Falcon 4, MS Fligh simulator 2004 are great imporvements over thius. I've flown light planes and spent plenty of time on sims and though the sims do not replicated the experience of flying, the avionics, physics, and necessary piloting techniques are increasingly close to the real thing. Jarg WaltBJ" wrote in message om... The only recent one I've messed with is Jane's Fighter Anthology - it is deficient in that it does not incorporate the effect of gravity in 3-dimensional maneuvering. Pitch-over is same rate as pull-up which is totally false. G limit is the same no matter what the pitch angle is up, down sideways or in between. Zero-G acceleration is not modeled. Fuel burn is also bogus - way below actual when in AB/reheat. Lots of little quibbles but those are the major ones which really detract from reality. BTW I speak from about 4500 hours in fighters and about 1500 hours instructor time also in fighters, from F86 Sabre, F102, F104 and F4. Now, if you want to practice instrument flight and work on your scan technique, Mcsft Flt Sim is quite adequate. Unfortunately no sim gives you 'real motion.' You will definitely notice the sensations of motion in the real aircraft, however. These must be ignored and will take some getting used to. Your flight instructor should explain them to you. Believe your instruments! Walt BJ |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: PC flight simulators
From: Ed Rasimus Date: 11/17/03 9:06 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: On 17 Nov 2003 16:31:36 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote: Does this mean that you suggest home simulatorsasa means to learn to fly? Maybe that is too simple for even our friend Occam. Arthur Kramer Actually, I don't mean that at all. Strangely enough, what I'm saying is that the "simple" task of learning to fly an airplane (C-150 to F-22 or B-777) requires the full fidelity of the multi-million dollar simulation. The more complex task of learning force integration, training for large formation tasks and learning the cognitive business of situational awareness, can be done with the lower cost solution of desktop trainers. Sizing the training aid to the task without over-producing it is the difficult task. You don't need full motion and multi-camera panoramic videos to teach someone how to sort and allocate targets or fly a low-level night WX route procedurally or cope with a basic emergency situation or even learn initial cockpit checklist procedures. Eventually you must integrate a number of skills to achieve combat effectiveness, but for many tasks learning them one-by-one and then combining them after mastery is a better training strategy. I understand. You are describing a highly specialised limited use of PC's for formation tasks and situational awareness with greater cost effectiveness then with mainframes. That makes sense. Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"ArtKramr" wrote in message
... Those FS programs can be quite counterproductive and in some cases destructive Of course, but then if you thought you could learn to drive a car safely and become a responsible user of an integrated road system after playing Gran Turismo you'd be seriously kidding yourself. When I took PPL lessons my instructor said he felt my instrument and control familiarity from playing sims helped a great deal, but only to a certain extent, naturally. It doesn't teach me how to use depth of field or how to "see" properly, and it doesn't instill in me the responsibility I must learn to show to other air traffic. But it gave me a few hours head-start. What modern flight sim games excel at is dynamic environments. Military sims generally simulate the performance of the vehicle being modelled in almost scripted environments. I seriously doubt there's a "professional" aircraft simulator out there that attempts even a tiny fraction of, say, Falcon 4's wider campaign and arena modelling. I think the majority of home games players would be thoroughly sick of the limitations of a professional simulator in a matter of hours. No-one's suggesting a game will teach you about the seriousness of your duty, or the very real fear of dying in combat, just as Medal of Honor isn't going to really teach you what it's like to storm the beaches of Normandy. To answer the original poster's question: FS 2004 is a fantastically detailed product for civilian flight, and Falcon 4 has yet to be beaten for sheer wealth of features and attention to detail in the military games market. But they are, in the end, entertainment products. Si |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
new theory of flight released Sept 2004 | Mark Oliver | Aerobatics | 1 | October 5th 04 10:20 PM |
Flight Simulator 2004 pro 4CDs, Eurowings 2004, Sea Plane Adventures, Concorde, HONG KONG 2004, World Airlines, other Addons, Sky Ranch, Jumbo 747, Greece 2000 [include El.Venizelos], Polynesia 2000, Real Airports, Private Wings, FLITESTAR V8.5 - JEP | vvcd | Home Built | 0 | September 22nd 04 07:16 PM |
FAA letter on flight into known icing | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 78 | December 22nd 03 07:44 PM |
Sim time loggable? | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | December 6th 03 07:47 AM |